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.
