Chargers seek public's views as next step toward new home
November 26, 2007
By Ronald W. Powell
CHULA VISTA - The Chargers' search for a new home in the county is nearing crunch time.
The team has been looking for a stadium site in the county since May 2006 and has narrowed the search to two locations in Chula Vista.
Team executives said they want to make a decision by the end of December. If they don't choose a Chula Vista site, it is unclear what the Chargers' next move would be.
Mark Fabiani, the team's general counsel and chief spokesman on the stadium issue, said neither team owner Alex Spanos nor team president Dean Spanos has talked about looking outside the county for a stadium site. The team remains optimistic that one of the Chula Vista sites will work, Fabiani said.
The team began its quest for a new stadium in 2002 with a proposal to redevelop San Diego's 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium property - a plan that featured 6,000 condominiums, a park, offices, a hotel, retail and restaurants, as well as $175 million in road improvements. Team officials jettisoned the idea in January 2006, saying city officials weren't supportive and that they could not find a development partner to share the financial burden.
"We've been at this for almost six years, and the Spanoses have shown their commitment to getting something done (in the county)," Fabiani said.
The Chargers estimate a stadium development could cost $1 billion. Chula Vista residents will have a chance to express opinions about a stadium at a town hall meeting Wednesday.
Fabiani said information from the public will factor into which Chula Vista site is selected. Then studies will be conducted to determine how it will be paid for and what the costs and economic benefits would be for the city.
The two sites under consideration are a vacant, 500-acre property east of state Route 125 and about a half-mile south of the Windingwalk at Otay Ranch neighborhood, and the 139-acre bayfront property that is home to the South Bay Power Plant.
The eastern property has no mass transit access and already is plagued by traffic congestion, while the bayfront site has greater access but a power plant that may be needed for years.
Chula Vista officials stress that no public money will be spent on stadium studies, and that they are looking for a deal that is good for taxpayers.
"We won't move forward on the stadium unless it is a net positive for the city of Chula Vista," said Councilman John McCann.
If city officials and the Chargers choose the eastern site, the proposal would be put to a public vote next November. If they select the bayfront site, Fabiani said a vote would take place after the fate of the power plant would be known.
Chargers seek split on tab for stadium
By Norberto Santana Jr.
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 16, 2003
The San Diego Chargers want taxpayers to pay half the cost of a $400 million stadium that would be built on the current 166-acre Qualcomm Stadium site.
The team envisions using 100 acres of the site, which would consist of a 25-acre stadium surrounded by parking and open space. Under the plan, the city would find a developer to purchase or lease the remaining 66 acres, which would feature an urban village with a mix of retail shops, housing and a 300-room hotel.
Mark Fabiani, special counsel to Chargers President Dean Spanos, released limited details of the project to reporters late yesterday afternoon. He provided renderings of the development plan, but no written proposal.
Fabiani and team consultants are expected to make a presentation on the proposal at tonight's San Ysidro meeting of the Citizens' Task Force on Chargers Issues, a City Council-appointed panel.
Fabiani declined to give specifics yesterday on the financing or land-use plans, but he described the team's proposal as "meant to inspire community debate and discussion."
Under the proposal, the city would continue to own the 100 acres used for the new stadium and surroundings and the team would sign a 25-to 30-year lease, with the rent to be negotiated, Fabiani said.
He said he expects the public contribution would likely be paid for by a public bond that would last for 20 to 25 years. Fabiani said one possibility would be for the city to sell the 66 acres for $100 million and use the proceeds to secure the bond.
Council members reached last night greeted the proposal with skepticism.
Councilwoman Donna Frye, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium, said, "When we are facing a $100 million deficit (in the city), facing layoffs and cuts in basic public services, given those financial realities, to say their timing is poor is likely the understatement of the century."
Councilman Michael Zucchet, elected in November, said getting the city to sponsor any kind of public bond for the stadium is a "total nonstarter."
"It's such a joke. The Chargers have a contract (for the current stadium). They can honor it or initiate litigation. I don't really care," he said.
Mayor Dick Murphy declined to comment, saying through a spokeswoman that he will wait for the task force to make a recommendation.
Fabiani said he understands the city's financial situation, which is why the team is proposing a plan that pays for itself. He said commercial development of the 66 acres would "net well in excess of the public's investment."
"This is brand-new revenue not currently flowing to the city," Fabiani said, noting that the current Qualcomm site costs millions of dollars to operate annually.
Fabiani said the Chargers and the NFL would pay $200 million for the new stadium, with the NFL's contribution likely to be a loan to the team.
The city's Chargers task force has spent six months analyzing redevelopment plans for the stadium site.
Task force Chairman David Watson, a land-use attorney and former city planning commissioner, said some panel members have developed "serious questions about whether a redevelopment plan can pay for itself."
"They have to balance land-use planning, work with environmental constraints and mitigation measures and financial requirements," Watson said. "This is a real challenge, and I'm interested to see how they deal with it."
He said tonight's meeting could "determine the future of the National Football League in San Diego."
The Chargers want to ask voters in November 2004 to approve a ballot measure that would pay for a new stadium. Fabiani acknowledged the time is short to accomplish that.
City leaders first would have to negotiate with the team on its current lease, which runs through 2020, and then almost immediately begin a public planning process on the Chargers' proposal. That would include public hearings and environmental reviews, followed by a council vote.
Then the matter could go before voters.
"All of that goes on simultaneously," Fabiani said.
It is possible to meet those tight deadlines, Fabiani said, "but it's going to take a tremendous amount of work."
The last time San Diego voters were asked to finance a stadium was for the Padres' ballpark in 1998. Nearly 60 percent of voters approved Proposition C, a $411 million public-private partnership to create the ballpark district.
With delays caused by court cases and political scandal, the price has risen to $458 million. The city's share is $206 million, most of which was raised through a bond sale last year.
The Padres are putting in $157 million, some of which is revenue from an as-yet-unsigned naming-rights deal for the East Village ballpark. The team also agreed to arrange for new office, retail and hotel development in the area immediately surrounding the ballpark.
The Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm, contributed $74 million. The San Diego Unified Port District will fund $21 million in infrastructure improvements.
Staff writers Jonathan Heller and David Washburn contributed to this report.
Chargers' vision of future
By David Neville, Charger.com
01.16.03 - When the Chargers started work on their initial proposal for a renovation of the Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley, they knew they were faced with an enormous challenge as well as a promising opportunity.
The challenge: to work together with the City of San Diego to find a sensible plan for the Qualcomm Stadium site – a plan that benefits the entire City of San Diego. From a fan-enjoyment standpoint, Qualcomm Stadium is an outdated dual-use facility built in the 1960’s which simply can’t compare with state-of-the art sports venues in other cities. But the team also realized from the start that a proposal which benefited just football fans would not win public support.
The opportunity: to find a way to get the best use out of the badly-underutilized 166-acre site where Qualcomm Stadium now stands. Currently, the site drains roughly $6-9 million a year from the City of San Diego treasury. Once the Padres move to their new ballpark, the site will be used less than 20 times a year for professional and college football. The rest of the year, the stadium and the adjoining huge parking lot will sit mostly idle.
“This is not just about the Chargers, or the Super Bowl; it’s about all San Diegans and the future of this city,” said Mark Fabiani, Special Counsel to the Chargers. “That’s why we’ve initiated what we hope is going to be a very public process to explore this opportunity.”
After retaining the best stadium finance, design and marketing experts in the country, and after spending months meeting with community groups and civic leaders, the Chargers believe that America’s Finest City can do better than to have a 35-year-old stadium drain millions of dollars from City coffers each year.
Instead, the Chargers believe that a sensible re-design of the site would benefit all San Diegans, including taxpayers who now subsidize the site: businesses that value the economic boost created by the Super Bowl and professional football; residents who crave more open green space, and families searching for affordable housing.
“The existing site is a potentially significant community asset that isn’t being used very well,” said Fabiani. “We believe the entire community of San Diego would benefit from an intelligent redesign on the site.”
Of course, a modern stadium would also provide fans with the ultimate live football experience, with the secondary benefit of ensuring that San Diego would stay in the rotation for the world’s premier sporting event: the Super Bowl.
The Chargers’ vision includes a $400 million stadium that would use roughly 100 acres of the site, leaving nearly 66 acres available for commercial development that would create new revenues for the City and offset the public’s investment in the site.
There are countless development options for the site, ranging from park land to a mixed use urban village. Under the Chargers’ proposal, San Diegans will have the opportunity to choose which option creates the right balance for the Mission Valley community, whether it’s affordable housing, retail outlets, more green space or a combination of all of them.
The Chargers also understand that they will need to have a significant financial stake in a new stadium. That’s why the team is prepared to pay 50 percent of the costs of constructing the stadium, equating to approximately $200 million dollars, putting significantly less financial burden on the City than other NFL cities have borne when building new stadiums.
Just as importantly, there will be no ticket guarantee or other financial protection of any kind for the team. The Chargers will assume the financial risk of failing to sell the team’s products and performances in a new stadium. Basically, the team would make a substantial investment in a new stadium on the belief that the Chargers can remain successful in San Diego.
“If we’re wrong about our ability to market the team, then we’ll be the only ones who bear the financial risk,” said Fabiani.
The Chargers’ don’t see this proposal as final in any way. In fact, just the opposite; it’s a starting point for the community…a way to open up public discussion on which of these ideas work or don’t work, while soliciting the public’s involvement in the process.
“We’re talking about public land, and it’s only right that the public will ultimately decide how to proceed,” said Fabiani. “We fully expect this proposal will eventually be put before the entire community for a vote, where the people will decide what is in San Diego’s best interests.
“We’ve presented these ideas in the spirit of open community discussion, and we hope these ideas for the site provide a useful starting point for such a debate.”
Let the discussion begin.
96-ACRE DECK COULD SUPPORT STADIUM
October 30, 2008
Copyright 2008 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - Building a 96-acre deck over a downtown San Diego marine cargo terminal
would take an engineering marvel that experts say is both tricky and expensive - possibly costing
as much as $800 million.
"Anything is possible with enough imagination and enough money," said Chris Kamp, a San
Diego structural engineer with the firm SDSE.
The 40-foot-tall concrete deck over the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal is the most provocative
aspect of Proposition B on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The developers who initiated the proposition have declined to reveal details about how the deck
would be constructed, saying they do not want to share that information with rivals. But reports say it could support and a new stadium and arena.
CH2M Hill, an international engineering firm, did studies for the proponents, concluding that
the deck idea is doable.
But the Colorado-based company says it is no longer working for the developers and wrote in a
letter to a San Diego port official, "We have directed them not to use our name at all."
The Unified Port District of San Diego, which administers the state tidelands that contain the
marine terminal, opposes Proposition B, saying it would hurt port operations.
It's not specified in the ballot language, but the developers behind the ballot measure suggest the deck could support a football stadium, an aquarium, a hotel, a sports and entertainment arena, parking or a new cruise ship terminal. Any option would be built with private money, proponents say.
Structural engineer Anthony Court said the deck's foundation would be more than twice the
size of the footprint of the nearby San Diego Convention Center. Dealing with the soft soils would complicate foundation work, and the platform would require a massive bracing effort against
earthquakes, Court said.
Developer and Proposition B initiator Frank Gallagher said CH2M Hill estimated the cost at
$606 million.
With such an expensive price tag, Port District officials, waterfront business owners and other
opponents say they doubt the deck will ever be built.
They believe it is a smoke screen to divert attention from a little-known part of Proposition B
that allows developers to build on the terminal, which is now dominated by warehouses, jet fuel
storage tanks, silos, offices and a large moveable crane for off-loading cargo.
But Gallagher said his group is committed to the deck, which he says could become as iconic
on San Diego Bay as the sail-shaped Sydney Opera House on the Australian city's harbor.
If Proposition B passes, he said it will require at least two years of planning - including a
development proposal for the top of the deck - before a plan is brought forward for review by the
Port Commission and state agencies, including the California Coastal Commission. (San Diego
Union Tribune)
November 6, 2008
Copyright 2008 MediaVentures
A plan to build a 40-foot-tall deck over a San Diego marine cargo terminal was defeated by
voters by a wide margin. Proposition B would have amended the San Diego Unified Port District's
master plan to allow construction of the platform over the port's 96-acre 10th Avenue Marine
Terminal. The initiative was paid for by two developers who ran a low-budget campaign to
convince voters in the Port District's five cities - San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach and Coronado - that the deck could support a sports arena, a hotel, an aquarium or other uses, including a football stadium for the Chargers. The team stayed on the sidelines during the campaign, but its executives said they would explore the deck plan if voters approved it. (San Diego Union Tribune)
CHARGERS CONSIDER STADIUM OPTIONS
November 13, 2008
Copyright 2008 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - The Chargers and their new stadium issues are stuck between a rock and
hard times. They're now trying to walk down a street of broken American dreams to find a suitable home. And all those foreclosure signs they're seeing along the way tell them this isn't how it was when they first came up with the idea.
The possibility of a Chula Vista bayfront site for a stadium remains on hold. A few things must
happen for there to be any progress, and the city isn't exactly doing cartwheels through
greenbacks. Chula Vista is the foreclosure capital of San Diego County.
And last, but far from least, is the current worldwide economic crisis. Trying to get a new
stadium built in this area, never was going to be easy. Now, constructing one anywhere will be
even more difficult. Plus, the football team can go wherever it pleases after Feb. 1 if it pays off about $55 million in city debt on the stadium.
"Right now, you couldn't finance it," says Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the
franchise's point man on stadium issues the past six years. "It would be impossible. The debt
markets are so seized up, it would be impractical; it would not be financially feasible."
Even if a site existed and a new stadium was approved, construction couldn't begin anytime
soon. Cash flow is constipated, backed up.
But the Chargers aren't about to adjourn. Too much time, effort and money have gone into the
project, and if it means they have to ride out this riptide, that's probably what they're going to do.
"If approved, we're looking at years of environmental reviews," Fabiani says. "Because it's
California, there's a minimum of two years of environmental and regulatory reviews, which means
you're now several years from having a plan you need to finance it.
"You have to know you can finance it and expect the economic climate will improve. If not . . .
well, there's nothing now to keep us from working on the project, and we will continue. I talked to Dean (club President Dean Spanos) this morning, and we did not talk finances. We talked Chula
Vista, and how we can't allow the financial crisis to affect plans. You can't do that."
"The environmental impact report (on both sites) has been delayed," Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl
Cox says, and those EIRs have nothing to do with a stadium. "It could be February. We haven't
even looked into the economic impact. We want to do what we can do to keep the Chargers in San
Diego County. But a new stadium is upward of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion now. Who's going to pay
for it?
"We need to develop a regional approach with the city of San Diego. There has to be a different
way."
The Mike Aguirre Factor? The city attorney soon will be out of office, replaced by Jan
Goldsmith, so while there could be some light in the city, it's more like a pinpoint.
"With Aguirre in office, it would have been impossible to get something done in the city,"
Fabiani says. "But it's still difficult, because of the constraints at the Qualcomm Stadium site. Our original proposal in 2005 was $450 million (for stadium and housing construction) and $200
million for infrastructure improvements. The cost of the project has doubled, at least.
"The only thing that hasn't changed is the size of the land, 166 acres. The proposal we made
doesn't work economically anymore. It's very difficult, with or without Aguirre."
The Chargers have between Feb. 1 and April 30 to inform City Hall if they will move, and it will
remain that way annually until the lease expires after the 2019 season. (San Diego Union Tribune)
NEW SITE BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR CHARGERS
November 20, 2008
Copyright 2008 MediaVentures
Chula Vista, Calif. - The decision by Gaylord Entertainment to abandon plans for a new hotel
and convention center in Chula Vista means a new potential stadium site is available for the San
Diego Chargers.
"The good news is that there is a large parcel on the bayfront that's now vacant," said Mark
Fabiani, general counsel for the team. "We'd look at that with open minds."
The Chargers have been exploring the possibility of building a stadium on land now occupied
by a power plant south of the Gaylord site - but it is unclear when the facility will be closed.
"If it is something the city and the Port District want us to look at, we'd take a look at it,"
Fabiani said. "The city had always made it clear to us - particularly Mayor Cox - that Gaylord was the No. 1 priority and that it had to be resolved before our project could move forward."
Chula Vista and the Port of San Diego learned this week that Gaylord Entertainment dropped
plans for a 32-acre resort.
In separate meetings with the Port District and the city, Gaylord Senior Vice President Bennett
Westbrook said the regulatory and financial hurdles were deal-breakers.
The project had been held out as the bayfront savior that would bring jobs, tourism and cash to
Chula Vista, the port and Gaylord, based in Nashville, Tenn.
"I'm really disappointed," said Mayor Cheryl Cox, who added that she had no idea Gaylord
planned to pull out. "There is no doubt in my mind that Gaylord's decision is final."
The company was dealing with at least nine regulatory agencies, including the California
Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission.
In addition, as the first developer of the waterfront, Gaylord would have been responsible for
$308 million in roads and other public works to serve its hotel and convention center.
"We have been unable to overcome perhaps the biggest hurdle of the project - funding the
enormous infrastructure costs associated with the bayfront redevelopment in a manner that will
generate adequate financial returns for Gaylord, the port and the city," Westbrook said in the letter.
Gaylord pulling out of Chula Vista could help accelerate efforts to expand the San Diego
Convention Center, he said.
Initially, convention center officials were concerned that Gaylord's plan would bleed business
from San Diego and cut into the city's hotel-tax revenue.
They later decided there would be a market for smaller events and that they could "own the
West" if they marketed with Gaylord, said Steven Johnson, convention center vice president for
public affairs. (San Diego Union Tribune)
CHARGERS MAY MOVE NEXT TO PETCO
February 26, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - The idea of having two stadiums in one area has been done before in places
like Pittsburgh and Baltimore.
Now, it could possibly happen in San Diego.
Plans are being discussed for a football stadium between Petco Park and 16th Street in San
Diego's East Village.
Although the San Diego Chargers are interested in building a stadium in the area, there are no
immediate plans.
"There is a lot more talk about it around town than before, probably because land values have
gone down," said Chargers' Special Counsel Mark Fabiani.
The team would also piggyback off the infrastructure already in place for Petco Park.
"You wouldn't have to build any roads, freeways, trolley stops, parking; it's all there," said Fabiani.
Fabiani said the location and amenities could cut construction costs by roughly $300 million,
but the team would still need to find 30 acres in this crowded area.
"It's going to be hard to find 30 acres that you can afford and that you can acquire without
displacing people," said Fabiani.
Some nearby buildings are already empty, like an old Wonder Bread building built in 1884.
"We hear talk about it. People have given us ideas about it. We've looked at them. But at this
time I think it's premature to say that's a realistic option," said Fabiani.
Fabiani told a group of developers and business people in La Jolla this week that the Chargers
are still focused on two sites in Chula Vista, including the bayfront power plant.
But Fabiani did admit the East Village was interesting.
"It's certainly something we have on our radar, no doubt about it," said Fabiani. (KGTV)
CITY, CHARGERS PAN PROPOSAL FOR NEW STADIUM
June 4, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - San Diego and the Chargers have panned a proposal from developer Perry
Dealy to build a 70,000-seat stadium, 16-story hotel and thousands of condominiums and
apartments adjacent to Qualcomm Stadium.
Dealy asked city officials to form a task force to study the plan, but later withdrew his proposal.
In a fax sent to Dealy, the Chargers said they do not support the proposal or believe it "has a
realistic chance of being implemented" because of its "extraordinary density."
Dealy said the billion-dollar project could be funded with $566 million through land sales, $302
million from borrowing against new tax revenues from the development, $200 million apiece from
the Chargers and the National Football League and potentially another $100 million from San
Diego State University.
It's estimated a new stadium would cost $700 million and infrastructure improvement another
$300 million. Dealy said the whole project hinges on the area being designated a redevelopment
zone.
The Chargers dismissed such a financing vehicle several years ago as legally and politically
untenable, but Dealy said a contaminated plume of water under the stadium site clears the way for
redevelopment designation.
Dealy said without that designation - which would direct tax revenue to the project and away
from other government jurisdictions - the concept crumbles.
CHARGERS CONTINUE TO REVIEW STADIUM OPTIONS
August 20, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - The Chargers are continuing their search for a workable site to build a new
stadium in the San Diego area, but say their biggest challenge now is the economy. That means
any new proposal isn't expected for many months.
Officials and developers in other cities, including San Antonio, Las Vegas and Los Angeles,
have shown interest in landing the Chargers, but team officials say the search remains locally
focused.
The team began asking for a new stadium in 2002, saying Qualcomm Stadium, now 42 years
old, created too little revenue for the team to stay competitive. The team initially considered
building a new stadium on the current 166-acre site in Mission Valley, but contends the bad
economy and building bust made that impossible. It started searching for a new site in 2006.
In May, developer Perry Dealy and a group of local business leaders suggested keeping the
Chargers at the site by building a hotel, condominiums and commercial space alongside a new
stadium. Lacking support from the Chargers or Mayor Jerry Sanders' office, the idea quickly faded.
More recently, the team has willingly been excluded from early discussions between the
Mayor's Office and San Diego State University to use some of the Qualcomm Stadium site for
student and faculty housing, research facilities and a park.
The Chargers' lease expires in 2020 and gives the team from Feb. 1 to May 1 every year to
notify the city of an intent to move. The team's cost to break its lease is $54.6 million next year but the amount falls to $25.8 million in 2011, which has led to speculation that if the team departs, it would do so in two years.
Suitors outside San Diego County have stepped forward.
In years past, the mayors of Las Vegas and San Antonio - smaller markets without NFL teams -
have expressed interest in the Chargers, and Los Angeles developer Ed Roski is pushing to build a
stadium in nearby City of Industry.
There is talk of luring one or even two NFL teams - from Jacksonville, Buffalo, Minnesota, St.
Louis, Oakland, San Francisco or San Diego - to that stadium.
TWO CITIES MAY UNITE ON CHARGER STADIUM PLAN
September 24, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - Oceanside and Escondido are reportedly working together on a plan to
build a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers and use revenue from a new mixed-use
development to help pay for the venue.
The proposed plan would see Oceanside host the stadium while Escondido would build the
mixed-use development to aid in the funding.
The Chargers are reviewing the plan and say it holds promise.
CHARGERS CONTINUE TO EXPLORE ESCONDIDO
October 1, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - The San Diego Chargers met this week with developers who are interested
in a plan that would see a new stadium built for the team in Escondido while development in
another adjacent city would help fund construction.
The leading Escondido site is the decaying industrial zone north of Highway 78 and east of
Interstate 15 that could be combined with adjacent vacant and underused parcels.
Team officials said they were open to a multi-city effort, with one community building a
stadium and another providing land and other incentives for the ancillary development. Under
such an arrangement, the team would share revenues with the developer and both cities.
The ancillary development is crucial to any stadium proposal because the National Football
League team says it needs revenues from that development to close a nearly $400 million gap in
the funding it needs for the$900 million stadium.
Dave Ferguson, an Escondido attorney spearheading the city's effort to land the Chargers, said
at least three developers have expressed interest in providing the capital for the ancillary
development.
Another incentive for cities would be the team's plans to relocate its 15-acre,
200,000-square-foot training facility somewhere in North County if a stadium is built in the region,
team officials said.
The Chargers have spent the last several years trying to leave outdated Qualcomm Stadium in
Mission Valley for a modern facility. They ruled out rebuilding on the Qualcomm site three years
ago when San Diego officials rejected a team proposal to use 60 acres of the parking lot for
condominiums, a hotel, offices and shops.
October 8, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
The Holiday Bowl, the Poinsettia Bowl and the San Diego State Aztecs could follow the San
Diego Chargers into a new stadium if the NFL team is successful in building a new venue. The
executive director of the two bowl games said he would expect both to be played in Escondido if a
modern stadium is built there. A move to Escondido would force San Diego State students to drive
to games instead of taking the San Diego Trolley two stops from the university campus to
Qualcomm Stadium. Athletic director Jeff Schemmel said that hurdle would not prevent the Aztecs
from following the Chargers to the north.
POLL SAYS RESIDENTS BELIEVE CHARGERS WILL STAY PUT
October 29, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - A new poll shows 56 percent of San Diego residents believe the Chargers
will remain in the area. With 34 percent saying the team may not remain at Qualcomm Stadium, 28
percent say the team could leave the county.
The poll of 505 randomly selected adults was conducted by San Diego-based Competitive Edge
Research & Communication, a firm that has worked for news organizations and political candidates
such as Mayor Jerry Sanders. The poll has a 4.4 percent margin of error.
John Nienstedt, the firm's president who has done polls for 22 years, said this one was
conducted for curiosity and community service, with no client and no preconceived notions.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, head of the team's stadium site search since 2002, said
the results were consistent with what he has heard at a string of public meetings over the years.
He called it "pretty remarkable" that more than half of those surveyed believe a solution will be
found in San Diego County within five years "after seven years of work without anything to show for it."
SAN DIEGO REVIVES TALKS WITH CHARGERS
November 5, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - Mayor Jerry Sanders and Chargers president Dean Spanos have reportedly
begun meetings about building a new stadium in the city. The two are considering several new
sites, one of which is near Petco Park.
Mayor Sanders initiated the meeting to continue the dialogue about downtown sites and to
ascertain that the team is still serious about staying in San Diego and is willing to work with us on
potential sites as they have with other cities in the county.
Team officials say financing still remains the key problem, but a downtown location near the
ballpark would reduce the cost of infrastructure.
The new effort by San Diego prompted leaders of five communities near Escondido, where the team
has been looking, to bind together in an effort to bring the stadium to their area.
During a special meeting that was closed to the media, officials from Escondido, Oceanside,
Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos discussed how a stadium would benefit North County as a whole
and what the hurdles are to such an ambitious project, Escondido Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler said.
One key topic was whether other cities have land along the Sprinter rail line for one or more
private developments that would be connected financially to the stadium, Pfeiler said.
Chargers officials say they need as much as $400 million in revenue from such an ancillary
private development to help pay for the $900 million stadium. A partner city is necessary because
Escondido's economy is not perceived to be large enough to absorb so much new development,
whether it be offices, housing, retail or a combination of those.
Pfeiler said that Escondido and San Diego officials have agreed to jointly study the leading
Escondido site and two potential stadium sites in downtown San Diego to determine the
advantages and disadvantages of all three sites.
ESCONDIDO DROPS OUT OF RACE FOR CHARGERS
November 12, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
Escondido, Calif. - With San Diego back in the hunt for a new stadium to host the Chargers,
Escondido officials say theyÕre headed to the sidelines.
The perceived viability of a newly proposed stadium site just east of Petco Park in downtown
San Diego has persuaded Escondido officials to end several months of negotiations with Chargers
officials and private developers who could help finance a stadium, Escondido Mayor Lori Holt
Pfeiler said.
But Pfeiler and a local attorney spearheading Escondido's stadium efforts said the city would
resume its campaign for a stadium if significant problems arise with the site near Petco.
Pfeiler said the decision to end negotiations was based primarily on two concerns: a strong
desire not to compete against San Diego, and concerns about wasting time and money on a
proposal that might go nowhere.
Since announcing several years ago that they planned to leave outdated Qualcomm Stadium in
Mission Valley for a modern stadium, the Chargers have explored sites in San Diego, Oceanside,
Chula Vista, National City and Escondido.
But no proposal has gotten past the discussion stages.
The site near Petco, which includes Tailgate Park and a bus yard, is appealing to the Chargers
because the team could use parking structures built for Petco and because virtually all the
necessary infrastructure is in place, team officials said, but they are concerned because the
footprint is very tight.
In contrast, a stadium in Escondido would require building several parking garages and might
require significant upgrades to roads and freeway ramps.
SAN DIEGO TO STUDY STADIUM FINANCING
November 19, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
San Diego, Calif. - San Diego will hire Mitchell Ziets and Evolution Media Capital LLC to
explore ways of financing a new stadium for the Chargers near the PadresÕ Petro Park. The study
would cost $160,000 and take 180 days.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani, the point person for on a stadium site search, called
Ziets' hiring significant because of how quickly it happened and because of what the consultant
has to do.
"It's what you do on any stadium project," Fabiani said. "You figure out what possible sources
of revenue are out there, from the stadium and from other sources. You try to cobble together
enough funding to make it work."
Fabiani said a downtown stadium could be built for less than $800 million because parking,
freeway access and public transportation already exist in the area.
In the past, he has indicated that the team would be willing to spend $200 million on a stadium
and that the NFL might be willing to lend the team an additional $100 million, but that revenue
from ancillary development - including offices, retail and condominiums - would play a big part in
a place where public subsidies are a tough sell.
The site being contemplated is currently home to a nearly 8-acre bus yard owned by the San
Diego Metropolitan Transit System, and privately owned parcels totaling less than 2 acres. An
earthquake fault running under the five-acre city-owned Tailgate Park likely makes construction
possible only on its eastern edge, Fabiani said.
Team architects visited the site and said building a stadium there would be challenging but
possible, Fabiani said.
