A Detailed Site-by-Site Analysis:

The Chargers Search for a Stadium in San Diego

Mission Valley (Qualcomm) Site
2003 to 2006
Presentation by HOK Architects, titled The Mission. A Public
Process from Beginning to End.
Drawings of the 166-acre Stadium and Urban Village site that
embraces a River and Park System
Drawings of a New Stadium
Details of the Scope of Suggested Mixed-Use Development
Cost Comparison of a New Stadium vs. the Renovation of
Qualcomm Stadium
Outlines a Concept of How Stadium Could be Financed
A.) Initial Proposal, January 2003
From the UT, 1/16/03:
The Chargers release their initial proposal for the Mission Valley site in
January 2003, a 59-page presentation by HOK Architectural Firm. It is a
$400-million stadium anchoring a 166-acre, mixed-use development,
referred to as an urban village with the following elements, expressing a
range of possibilities:
Stadium
Residential
Office Space
Retail Space
Hotel
River Park

65,600 capacity, 73,000+ Super Bowl capacity

1,000 units to 3,200 units
500,000-square-feet to 1,150,000-square-feet
100,000-square-feet to 350,000-square-feet
300 rooms to 450 rooms
9 acres to18 acres

The Chargers propose the team pay for 50 percent of the $400-million
stadium, and the City of San Diego pays for the rest.
The financing concept breaks it down this way:

Team Contribution
Funds from Chargers Debt and/or Equity $132 million
Funds from NFL G-3 Loan $68 million
Total Team Contribution: $200 million
Public Funds
City of San Diego $200 million
Total Public Contribution $200 million
Total Stadium Cost: $400 million
The Chargers envision 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 hotel. 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 rent to be negotiated. (From the UT, 01/13/03)
The Chargers ask the city to give them 60 acres at the Qualcomm site at no
cost.
The Chargers ask the city to issue bonds for $150 million to $175 million to
pay for traffic and other infrastructure costs.
From the HOK proposal:
The Chargers say the current site in Mission Valley continues to be the
most practical location in the San Diego area for such a facility.
The Chargers say the Qualcomm site offers significant potential for
ancillary development representing a substantial untapped revenue source
for the city. A graphic states: 1.) Land sale proceeds could reach $100
million. 2.) City benefits from annual property tax, transient occupancy tax,
and sales and use tax revenues which would likely be in the neighborhood of
$16 million a year (upon full development of the site).
The Chargers say potential revenues from ancillary development offset city
stadium construction costs and leave significant excess. A graphic states:
$123.2 million in Excess to City for Other Uses

The Chargers say that their NFL local revenue rating since 1994 has steadily
fallen from 15th to 27th (out of 32 NFL teams). The Chargers say that their
revenues will increase with a new stadium and that they expect an
aggregate increase of at least $15 million with a new stadium (luxury suites,
club seats, other premium options, advertising inventory, sponsorship
opportunities).
The Chargers proposal was not embraced.
From the UT, 1/16/03:
Councilmember Donna Frye, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium,
said, When were 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.
Councilmember Michael Zucchet, elected in November, said getting the city
to sponsor any kind of public bond for the stadium is a total nonstarter.
Its such a joke. The Chargers have a contract (for the current stadium).
They can honor it or initiate litigation. I dont really care, he said.
Mayor Dick Murphy declined comment.
B.) Chargers amend proposal, June 2003:
From the UT, 6/20/05:
The Chargers and a development partner commit to build and pay for
the construction of the stadium.
The following stays the same:
The Chargers still ask the city to give them the 60 acres at Qualcomm
site for no cost.
The city still would own the stadium.
The Chargers still ask the city to issue bonds for $150 million to $175
million to pay for traffic and other infrastructure costs.
But as the Chargers continue to refine their plans, San Diegos finances take
a downward turn, to the point that the city can no longer issue bonds at
reasonable interest rates. Millions in city operating revenues also are being
spent on the pension deficit, which now totals more than $1 billion.

C.) Chargers amend proposal, February 2004:

From the UT, 6/20/05:
The Chargers drop the request for city financial assistance and
propose to pick up the cost for roads and infrastructure.
The Chargers increase the residential units in the multi-use
development plan.
The Chargers commit that the team and a development partner would
use the land to build at least 6,000 condominiums, a hotel, offices and
retail shops. The Chargers will use the sales and the leases to pay for
the new stadium and to make a profit.
In addition, the Chargers development partner, who has yet to be picked,
will:
Create a 30-acre park along the San Diego River on the southern edge
of the Qualcomm property that would be maintained by the
development team.
Build a 4,000-space parking garage.
Pay off more than $50-million owed by the city for the 1997
expansion of Qualcomm Stadium a savings to the city of more than
$6 million a year.
Most notably:
The Chargers will sign a 25-year lease with the city that will not
include an exit clause for the team to leave town. Under the current
plan, the Chargers can shop the team to other cities starting Jan. 1.
2007, and leave San Diego following the 2008 season.
D.) Chargers make a political move, June 2005.
From the UT, 6/20/05:
Mark Fabiani, special counsel to Chargers President Dean Spanos, says the
Chargers will sidestep the San Diego City Council and take their proposal
directly to the voters at the Nov. 7, 2006 election.
Fabiani says the move was necessary because there was not enough time to
conduct an environmental study on the project by the citys deadline to
submit ballot proposals for the Nov. 7, 2006 election. If the council were to

put the measure on the ballot, the environmental study would have to be
done by Aug. 11, 2006.
By using the initiative process to qualify the ballot measure this means
gathering signatures from city voters on petitions the Chargers can wait to
study how the development would impact the environment until the team is
ready to begin construction.
The team plans to present a ballot proposal to the City Clerk by Feb. 8, 2006
and kickoff signature gathering March 3. The team intends to collect by June
3 more than 60,000 signatures from registered voters in San Diego to qualify
the measure for the ballot.
Chargers President Dean Spanos says a new stadium would solve the teams
financial problems. The teams revenues are near the bottom of the 32-team
league, Spanos says, putting the Chargers at a disadvantage for attracting
talented, pricey players.
Fabiani says the Chargers stadium plan is more about helping out the city
than helping enrich team ownership.
Our argument is not that were doing this because it helps the Chargers,
Fabiani says. Were doing this because its a smart financial move for the
city. Were changing this from a revenue-eating property to a revenuegenerating property.
He points out that a citizens city task force found that Qualcomm Stadium
has $50 million in deferred maintenance costs. Additionally, the citys
finances are drained by $5.8 million a year to pay off the $60 million in
stadium expansion bonds the city issued in 1997.
The Chargers website contends that the city is spending $10 million a year to
operate Qualcomm Stadium, a cost that would be eliminated by a new
stadium.
But David E. Watson, chair of the Citizens Task Force on Chargers Issues,
says that the stadiums operating expenses are less than half that amount
because the city no longer pays for the Chargers ticket guarantee or
preparation costs for 81 San Diego Padres games each year.

The ticket guarantee obligated the city to ensure the Chargers receive
revenue equal to the price of 60,000 general admission tickets for every
home game from 1997 through preseason 2007. (From 1997 until the ticket
guarantee was eliminated in July 2004, the city paid the team $34.8
million.)
If the Chargers get the 60 acres from the city for development, the
maintenance costs on the stadium and the bond debt would be wiped out.
After the project is completed, the city would stand to gain $5 million or
more from the property, sales and hotel room taxes, as well as other revenue,
Fabiani says.
E.) Chargers abandon plans to place stadium proposal on ballot, January 9,
2006
From the UT, 1/8/06
Fabiani says the citys pension-related financial problems and political
turmoil last year, led by a voluntary resignation of a mayor and the forced
departure of two city council members convicted in a federal corruption
case, have made it difficult to get a development partner.
There is also a heavy outlay of investment money before the partners can
begin building condominiums and other commercial development that are
the profit centers for the project.
Fabiani says the team and its partner would share an expense list that
includes $450 million for the stadium; $175 million in overpass and other
traffic improvements; $70 million for a parking garage: $5 million to
demolish the current stadium; more than $50 million to retire the bond debt
on the stadium expansion, and $10 million for anticipated litigation costs.
Besides the initial investment, Fabiani says that potential development
partners also have stated concerns about San Diegos housing market and
whether it could handle another 6,000 condominiums. (From the UT,
4/22/06)
Fabiani says that the team dropped plans to put a stadium proposal on the
ballot because the citys precarious finances scared off potential
development partners who would have had to share an estimated $800
million in upfront costs for the project.

From the UT, 1/10/06:

Fabiani blames the decision on the financial mess at City Hall, and more
pointedly, on City Attorney Michael Aguirre.
Potential development partners the team sought to share the burden of more
than $800 million in upfront costs were put off by Aguirres opposition to a
key element to the plan, Fabiani said. Without a partner, the team could not
meet the Feb. 8 deadline to get ballot language to the City Clerks Office and
start a petition drive.
The signatures of more than 60,000 registered voters needed to be turned in
to the city by early June to qualify the teams plan for a November vote. The
Chargers said the vote on the stadium and commercial development would
be binding, but Aguirre said it would likely be advisory.
In fact, it is now clear that Aguirre will do or say whatever it takes to stand
in the way of a redevelopment plan, Fabiani said. And if the Chargers are
eventually forced to leave San Diego, there can now be no doubt that Mike
Aguirre will be to blame.
The ballot measure would have asked voter approval of a plan to build a
$450 million stadium in Mission Valley at the 166-acrea Qualcomm Stadium
site, owned by the city. As part of the deal, the team sought 60 acres apart
from the new stadium to build 6,000 condominiums, a hotel, stores and
offices. The team would use the profit to pay for the stadium, $175 million
in traffic improvements, the balance of $60 million in bonds issued to
expand Qualcomm Stadium in 1997 and other features.
The Chargers wanted the 60 acres for free. Aguirre said the land is worth
about $500 million, and it cannot be given away because it belongs to the
citys water department. By law, he said, the department must be paid for the
appraised value.
Im fully supportive of the mayors efforts to work out something with the
Chargers, Aguirre said. But what we dont want is another selfish, onesided deal. My job is to make sure the deal is fair to the taxpayers.

Mayor Jerry Sanders said the citys preoccupation with other pressing issues,
including a pension fund deficit of at least $1.4 billion and possible budget
cuts, has left little time to deal with the Chargers.
They havent had anybody to negotiate with for the last year, Sanders said.
Im sure theyre getting antsy.
From the LA Times, 1/11/06:
Fabiani says a major stumbling block has been finding a development
partner, essential to building a privately-finance stadium. The chaotic
political climate in San Diego and the citys budget crisis have scared away
prospective investors.
Our year-long negotiations with potential development partners have
confirmed that this is an enormously complicated project a project that is
made even more difficult by the unprecedented financial and political
crisis, Fabiani said in a release.
And this hard project becomes impossible when key city officials do not
want to cooperate. Without the citys full cooperation, the traffic and
infrastructure improvements to be paid for by the private sector could never
actually be built, the Environmental Impact Report could never be certified
and hundreds of other issues could never be resolved. (LA Times, 1/11/06)
G.) Mayor Jerry Sanders Says Chargers Should Be Allowed to Seek Stadium
Deal Elsewhere in San Diego County, April 21, 2006
From the UT, 4/21/06:
Mayor Jerry Sanders says the city has neither the time nor the money to
focus on a new Chargers football stadium. He announced in a press
conference that the Chargers should be allowed to seek a site elsewhere in
the county.
Mayor Sanders says he is unwilling to spend public money on a new
stadium when San Diego faces numerous financial challenges, including a
$1.43 billion deficit in the employee pension fund.
If the lease is amended, wed eagerly explore our options in the county the
minute were afforded the opportunity to do so, Fabiani says.

H.) San Diego City Council Grants Chargers the Right to Negotiate with
Other Cities in San Diego County, May 1, 2006
From the Voice of San Diego, 5/2/06:
Today we begin by doing everything possible we can to keep the Chargers
a regional asset. Allowing them to look elsewhere in San Diego County until
the end of the year will give us a better chance of keeping them here, says
Jim Waring, the City of San Diegos land-use czar.
The City Council voted unanimously to amend the lease, which does not
require the team to keep the name San Diego Chargers if it moves within
the county.
National City Site
May 2006 to May 2007
National City is the first city in San Diego County to offer the
Chargers a plan, after team tabled the Mission Valley site
Site is a 52-acre parcel of land.
Site is problematic from the start: It is not owned by National
City. It is under the control of the Port of San Diego and BNSF
Railway
The Port of San Diego study the dimensions of the site and
conclude a stadium could be built without disturbing the Ports
mission to promote maritime jobs and commerce
Any potential development proposal would require the Ports
approval
Chargers study the site, but determine building a stadium there
would be expensive
National City drops idea of building a Chargers stadium, after
getting little to no support from the City and County of San Diego
and San Diego State University
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
From the UT, 5/12/07 and the UT, 8/2/06:
National Citys proposed stadium site was problematic from the start.
The 52-acre site, located west of I-5 and south of Bay Marina Drive, is not
owned by the City of National City. Two-thirds is under control of the San

Diego Unified Port District, with the remaining one-third owned by BNSF
Railway. Both would have to approve the stadium project.
Port Commissioner Stephen P. Cushman presented a study to the Board of
Port Commissioners in October 2006 that concluded the site was large
enough for a stadium.
The site is near the Port Districts 24th Street Marine Terminal, a marine
cargo facility, and is being used by eight port tenants, San Diego
government, Dixieline Lumber and Pasha, a car importer.
The Working Waterfront Group, a coalition of maritime-industrial businesses
against building at the site, quickly formed after National City announced its
intention to pursue a stadium site. The city believed the stadium could be a
catalyst for economic development in the cash-strapped city of 65,000. The
Working Waterfront Group argued vigorously against the proposal, stating
that a stadium would harm waterfront-dependent businesses.
The Chargers analyzed the site, and although team officials liked the
location, they determined that it would be an expensive place to build a
stadium. They said as many as five 2,000-car parking garages would need to
be built, along with freeway on- and off-ramps and the possible realignment
of trolley tracks. The Chargers estimated those changes would have added
another $400 million to a stadium project that already cost $650 million to
$750 million.
However, that did not deter National City officials, who hired a stadium
consultant from Arizona and former San Diego Assistant City Attorney Les
Girard, and began a series of meetings with San Diego government officials
and members of the local business community.
In 2006, National City spent $25,000 on a survey of city residents and
business leaders and found 57 percent said they strongly supported a
stadium.
But National City officials got a lukewarm reception when they began a
series of meetings in March 2007, with officials from the city and county of
San Diego and San Diego State University. They sought money for
consultants and infrastructure but were turned down.

Then, in May 2007, National City withdrew its attempt to build a new
Chargers stadium.
From the UT, 5/12/07:
National City Mayor Ron Morrison said city officials realized there was not
enough regional support for their long-shot bid and decided to step aside.
From Day One, I knew it would be an uphill battle because Ive worked
with local governments for a long time, Morrison said. This is a very fast
process and local government isnt used to moving very fast.
Chula Vista Site
2007 to June 2009
Chargers pay $220,000 for a study to identify potential stadium
sites in Chula Vista and the traffic that would be generated
Study identifies two sites, both problematic
139-acre Bay Front site: It is dominated by a power plant that
may be needed for years, and the land is not owned by Chula
Vista (owned by the Port)
500-acre site: It is not served by mass transit, and it is already
plagued by traffic congestion
Study does not examine specific type of development that might
help pay for the $1-billion project
Chula Vista drops Chargers stadium pursuit when the Deputy
Mayor, a U.S. Navy reserve, is called to Active Military Duty
Chula Vista City Council votes NO
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
Two pieces of land in Chula Vista are suitable for an NFL stadium,
according to a study by the City of Chula Vista that was paid for by the
Chargers.
The architectural firm Cooper, Robertson and Partners identified four sites
and narrowed it down to two.
1.) 139-acre Bay Front property, bound by the San Diego Bay to the west
and Bay Boulevard, which is owned by the Port of San Diego and
currently houses the South Bay Power Plant.

2.) 500-acre lot, one mile due east of State Road 125 along Hunte
Parkway.
From the UT, 9/14/07:
The Chargers paid $220,000 for the study, which also considered two other
sites in Chula Vista. It was 49 pages, released at a press conference
September 11, 2007. It looks only at whether the sites in that city could
accommodate a stadium and the traffic it would generate. It does not
examine a specific type of development that might help pay for the
stadiums anticipated $1-billion construction cost.
Chula Vista officials are clearly enamored with the bay front site.
Fabiani says the bay front site poses obstacles, including possible clean up
of the South Bay Power Plant after it is torn down.
Chula Vista officials say the power plant is due to come down in 2010. (As it
turned out, it was successfully imploded February 2, 2013.)
From KPBS, 11/29/07:
According to Fabiani, there are the issues with the bay front site. One, the
bay front site is owned by the Port, it isnt owned by the City of Chula Vista.
In addition, you have Coastal Commission jurisdiction, state tidelands
jurisdiction, obviously the state power authority. So we would be looking
for a special election in 09 for the bay front site.
From the San Diego Daily Transcript, 11/5/07:
Jason Hughes writes in that the ideas for both stadium sites include
development. The 500-acre inland site would include development on that
site; the bay front site would include development on that same 500-acre
site.
From Channel 10 News website, 6/24/09:
Chula Vista Deputy Mayor John McCann was called to active duty by the
Navy, and the Chula Vista City Council decided without McCann and not
much sign of progress a proposal to put the Chargers Subcommittee on
hiatus was approved.

Says Fabiani: This decision sends a message that theyre not interested.
With the city unable to get the power plant shut down, we will now walk
away.
Oceanside Center City Golf Course Site January 2007 to October 2007
72-acre site, which Chargers ultimately acknowledge is not large
enough to sustain a mixed-use development profitable enough to
offset the cots of stadium construction
Chargers hire consultants to do a preliminary feasibility analysis
of combining up to 2-million square feet of high-end office space
(an office village) with a stadium
Golf course is zoned parkland and voters would approve a zoning
change for a stadium to be built
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
The Center City Golf Course, a 72-acre site in Oceanside, is located
northeast of I-5 and the Oceanside Boulevard interchange. The city has
leased the property through 2011 to operators of the 18-hole golf course.
The city of Oceanside owns an adjoining four acres to the north of the golf
course, providing a development footprint of more than 75 acres.
The course, nicknamed Goat Hill for its rugged terrain, would need
extensive grading, which would drive up the price of the stadium.
There also are other problems with the site. The golf course is zoned
parkland, and voters would have to approve a zoning change if a stadium
were to be built here. Also, some believe, that a stadium, if built, can cause
traffic and environmental issues to the area, especially during game days.
The Chargers acknowledge the golf course site was not large enough to
sustain a development profitable enough to offset the costs of stadium
construction. Thus, other property would need to be obtained.
This site would need a public vote to a.) Approve the terms of the land
acquisition, and b.) Rezone and sell the property.

But there is an upside for the team. Oceanside is a prime location for the
Chargers because it offers easy access for the teams North County fans, as
well as those in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties by freeway
and rail. About 8,800 of the teams season ticket holders already come from
North County, and about 8,500 are from Orange and Riverside counties. A
stadium built in Oceanside easily could attract more fans from Orange and
Riverside counties, and Los Angeles.
From the UT, 1/4/07:
Jerry Butkiewicz, the secretary-treasurer of the San Diego-Imperial Counties
Labor Council, set up a meeting, in late December 2006, attended by
Butkiewicz, Fabiani and Oceanside City Attorney John Mullen. Oceanside
officials wondered if the Chargers had a real interest in Oceansides Center
City Golf Course, or if the team was just using it to leverage other cities in
the county.
Fabiani says Chargers President Dean Spanos made it clear he is not wasting
the citys time.
Butkiewicz says he arranged the meeting because he wants the Chargers to
stay in the county.
From Associated Press, 1/12/07:
On January 12, 2007, Chargers President Dean Spanos sends a letter to
Oceanside Mayor Jim Wood, saying hed like to discuss the possibility of
building a stadium in Oceanside. Spanos and Wood had met on Tuesday,
Janaury 2, and the Oceanside City Council had voted unanimously on
Saturday, January 6 that theyd be interested in talking to the Chargers about
building a stadium.
Spanos letter to Wood states our goal is to privately finance the stadium
with the profits from a commercial development project that the city would
help us carry out.
In May 2007, the Chargers hire Irvine-based consultants, GCI Advisors, to
do a preliminary feasibility analysis. It is to study the viability of combining
a complex of high-end office space with a stadium i.e., would a 2-million
square-foot office space make the project financially feasible?
From the UT, 4/24/07:

Fabiani calls the concept an office village a development anchored by

offices, that would include entertainment venues, restaurants and shopping.
It would include parking garages.
Fabiani says if the GCI Advisors study shows there is not enough demand
for office space, or that the cash flow generated by such a development
would not support a $700-million stadium, the Chargers would be at a
crossroads with Oceanside.
The GCI study is released September 24, 2007.
From the North County Times, 10/3/07:
Preliminary studies of a study commissioned by the Chargers show that the
70-plus acre Center City Golf Course site cant hold a new football stadium
and still squeeze in the accompanying office space, shops, restaurants and
parking envisioned for the area. The study also shows the proposed high-end
office space wont generate the immediate cash flow the Chargers had hoped
would pay for the $700-million facility, Fabiani says.
Oceanside Defunct Drive-in Theatre/Oceanside Municipal Airport Site
June 2009 to October 2009
National developer approaches Chargers about building a
stadium and mixed-use development on a 90-acre site in
Oceanside
Major barrier to this site: Close proximity to Oceanside
Municipal Airport
FAA would have a big say in the project
Economic downturn makes it impossible to support the ancillary
development of retail, hotels, residences and office space
necessary to support a stadium
Oceanside drops pursuit of stadium
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
From the UT, 6/18/09:
An executive with Georgia-based Thomas Enterprises, which has approval
to build 950,000-square-feet of commercial space (open-air shopping center)
on the 90-acre site, broached subject of putting a stadium there with Fabiani
(in May 2009).

There have been no financial studies or maps made of the site, said Mel
Kuhnel, Thomas Enterprises vice-president of operations for the West Coast.
The site is problematic from the get-go: A.) The economy would need to
rebound in order to support ancillary development of retail shops, hotels,
residences and office space to support a stadium; B.) There is little public
transportation to the site, and C.) It is close to the Oceanside Municipal
Airport.
The city of Oceanside might soon lock in a 50-year lease extension to the
airport, giving the FAA a big say in the nearby development. A stadium
would require at least 20 acres and be up to 200 feet tall.
From chargers.com, 9/28/09:
The proximity to the site to the Oceanside Airport has proved to be a
very significant barrier, Fabiani says.
Escondido Site
May 2009 to November 2009
60-are stadium project, constructed by buying up to 50 contiguous
properties
Mixed-use development
Escondido drops stadium pursuit when it hears about Chargers
interest in a downtown San Diego site in the East Village district
Escondido does not want to compete against San Diego
Escondido does not want to waste time and money on a proposal
that might go nowhere
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
From KPBS.org, 10/2/09:
The Chargers were talking to with Escondido city officials about the
possibility of locating a new stadium at the southeast quadrant of I-5, or I-15
and 78. It is somewhat of an industrial area of Escondido, ripe for
redevelopment by a Chargers stadium.
From San Diego Metro, 1/09:
One major problem with Escondido is the lack of an empty piece of land big
enough for a stadium. Another problem is a lack of money. Escondido

Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler says the city doesnt have the kind of money needed
to build a stadium.
From Chargers.com, 9/28/09:
Talks began in earnest in May, according to Fabiani, with the Chargers,
community leaders and city officials evaluating a series of stadium
feasibility issues. The idea of Escondido was ignited when Mitch Mitchell, a
downtown business leader and vice president of external affairs for San
Diego Gas and Electric, introduced Fabiani to Dave Ferguson, a veteran
Escondido land-use attorney.
The threshold feasibility issues, always, are parking and transportation
infrastructure, Fabiani says. So our initial work focused on those areas.
Now we have turned to a private financing question: Will a development
project, in conjunction with several hundred million dollars in equity
contributions from the Chargers and the NFL, be sufficient to privately
finance the entire project?
From the UT, 11/10/09:
Escondido suspends its pursuit of a Chargers stadium. Mayor Pfeiler said the
decision was based 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.
10th Avenue Marine Terminal Site
2004 to 2009; 2012
Site never got off the ground because every time someone brought
it up, it was batted down
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financing plan by Chargers
From the UT, 5/30/04:
Port Commission Chairman Peter Q. Davis suggests the Chargers play at the
10th Avenue Marine Terminal Site. He is strongly supported by San Diego
Padres owner John Moores, but he is receiving a lot of pushback from
commission colleagues and labor leaders.
Davis met with Chargers President Dean Spanos and Fabiani in January
2004. He also met with Moores, Mayor Dick Murphy and County
Supervisor Ron Roberts to discuss the site.

Fabiani says the Chargers are willing to listen, but that the team remains
committed to its Mission Valley site redevelopment plan.
From the minutes of the Board of Port Commissions, 7/13/04:
The board and district staff terminate all activities and discussions that
related to the development of a football stadium or any other non-maritime
uses on said Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal site.
From the Port of San Diego website, 10/30/09:
Stories in the local media continue to refer to the San Diego Unified Port
Districts Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal as a possible site for a new
Chargers stadium, but Port Commission Chairman Stephen P. Cushman said
that such a development is impossible.
The Port Act of 1962, which lays out the purposes for creating the Port
District, clearly states that it is the policy of the State of California to
develop ports for the benefit of the people of this state, Cushman said.
Specifically, the Act says the Port Districts purpose is to acquire, build,
maintain and operate port facilities.
As trustees of the Port Districts terminal at 10th Avenue, we are committed
to upholding that policy and responsibility, Cushman continued. There is
no way our working port and a football stadium can coexist at the Tenth
Avenue facility. It is time for all the idle speculation about such a
development to stop.
From the San Diego Free Press.com, 10/12:
Shortly after he completed is purchase of the San Diego Union Tribune, San
Diego real estate magnate Doug Manchester ordered his editorial staff to
produce a couple of edicts in support of his grand vision for a stadium-arenasports entertainment complex-expanded convention center on the 10th
Avenue Marine Terminal site. In their editorials, Manchester and his righthand man John Lynch make their case for refurbishing the Bay front and
combining an expanded convention center with the stadium-arena-sports
entertainment complex.
From the UT, 1/12/12:
Thanks to pension and budget crises, government dysfunction and a
political culture of suspicion and mistrust, San Diego sometimes to have lost

its ability to think big. If our city is to reach its potential, this must change,
starting but only starting -- with the need for a new stadium for the
Chargers, an expansion of the Convention Center, and, indeed, the broader
downtown waterfront.
In the final analysis, this site never got off the ground. Every time it was
brought up or brought back up it got shot down.
East Village site 2009 to 2013
In 2009, Chargers say the site is small (10 to 15 acres), able to hold
a stadium and little else
In 2009, Chargers say no room for any related development, and
no room for the Chargers to help pay for the stadium through
mixed-used development, which has been the teams basic concept
for past seven years
In 2009, Chargers say acquiring more land downtown would be
enormous cost
In 2011, Chargers present joint-use stadium-convention center
plan to Mayor Jerry Sanders
In 2011, Mayor Jerry Sanders rejects Chargers East Village plan
In 2013, Chargers rekindle joint-use stadium-convention center
plan
In 2013, Chargers announce an investment partner, Colony
Capital LLC, for the East Village plan
In 2013, and 2014, Chargers suggest the city sell off Qualcomm
and Sports Arena sites to help pay for the East Village stadium
In 2014, Chargers suggest using public land Qualcomm and
Sports Arena sites, plus land downtown (MTS bus terminal and
Wonder Bread property) to generate revenue to build a stadium
In 2014, Chargers suggest Qualcomm and Sports Arena land be
ceded to a private owner for redevelopment, with a portion of
resulting profits channeled to the Chargers to pay about 65
percent of the estimated $1 billion stadium
A. Chargers float idea of downtown San Diego East Village site,
September 2009:
From chargers.com, 9/28/09:

Fabiani: Our architects have said its very tight, and youve still got to
privately raise several hundred million dollars. He also said exploring the
site shouldnt take more than a few months.
Fabiani: Downtowns advantages are clear: Project costs can be
dramatically reduced because the necessary parking and transportation
infrastructure is already in place downtown. At the same time, the challenges
of acquiring the necessary land downtown are enormous
From KPBS.org, 10/09 (transcript of Fabiani interview on These Days:
Fabiani: The site downtown is very small. Its no more than 15 acres and
potentially around 10 acres, which makes it barely big enough to hold the
stadium and nothing else, which means it would be a very urban stadium
but theres no room for the Chargers to help pay for the stadium by building
a mixed used development next to the stadium, which has been our basic
concept for the last seven years. So the site itself dictates a change in your
financial plan. How much of a change? Again, I think it remains to be seen.
The Qualcomm site could generate a lot of revenue for this project if it were
developed or if it were sold There are all sorts of potential revenue
opportunities out there. Whether theyll be acceptable to the public or not,
whether, when theres a vote people will actually vote for it, obviously that
remains to be seen and we have the burden of convincing people its going
to be a good deal for taxpayers.
B.) Chargers present downtown San Diego East Village idea to Mayor Jerry
Sanders, and the Mayor rejects it, 2011
C.) Chargers present a joint-use stadium convention center plan for the East
Village in downtown San Diego to the California Coastal Commission,
September 5, 2013
From the UT, 9/5/13:
The San Diego Chargers on Thursday ramped up the organizations longstanding opposition to plans to expand the bay front convention center by
detailing an alternative for the teams long-desired stadium.
On the website chargers.com, the team said it presented the California
Coastal Commission on Thursday with a plan to build a combined football
stadium and convention center in downtown San Diegos East Village.

Mark Fabiani, the Chargers special counsel, said in March that the team
would eventually unveil a new plan despite others support for former Mayor
Jerry Sanders proposed convention center expansion.
The teams East Village proposal was detailed on chargers.com.
The current proposed $520-million convention center expansion is expected
to be considered by the Coastal Commission next month. City and
convention have said such a plan is needed to attract major conventions to
San Diego. The idea of a combined project has been rejected by backers of
the current convention center expansion proposal as not meeting the need for
contiguous space for large meetings. A new project would be blocks away
from the current convention center.
On the Chargers website, Fabiani said the team and Colony Capital, an
international investment and development firm, along with the teams
architectural firm, Populous, decided that the joint-use plan in mort cost
effective and environmentally sensitive than a convention center expansion.
From chargers.com, 9/5/13:
The Chargers also announce that a major international investment firm
Colony Capital LLC is partnering with the team to pursue this alternative
vision for downtown San Diego, as well as for the Qualcomm and Sports
Arena sites.
The Chargers state on chargers.com that this is essentially the same plan
they proposed to Mayor Jerry Sanders in 2011 and was rejected.
Yes, the concept is the same, but things have changed since 2011, Fabiani
said. We were told back in 2011 that the city did not have time to consider
our alternative because the convention center expansion, the Big Box on the
Water, was very far along, and that both the courts and the Coastal
Commission would quickly approve the proposed expansion. Of course
thats not at all what has happened.
From the UT, 1/11/14
Two years ago, the owners of the UT presented their vision of building a
$1.5 billion sports-entertainment district with a stadium, arena and
convention center at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal in downtown San
Diego. In the analysis of how a stadium project could be financed, there was

one powerful anchor. It was the $400 million -- $200 million apiece
expected to come from the Spanos family and the NFL, with the NFLs
assistance in the form of a loan toward construction.
Now, however, it seems increasingly plausible to think that there is a second
powerful anchor for project funding to build on the contributions from the
team and the league. Its the money that could be generated from the sale
and development of the city-owned Valley View Casino Center sports arena
in the Midway District, a 67-acre site leased through 2017, and the cityowned 161-acre Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley.
A key new player in the stadium debate is Colony Capital, a privately held
Santa Monica-based global real estate investment firm that has rapidly
expanded since its 1991 founding through strategy of identifying
undervalued assets, acquiring the and realizing their potential. Colony
Capital has been working with the Chargers since last summer.
When we first met with Colony, (the sports arena) was the site they talked
about. That was the site that interested them more than anything else,
Fabiani says. Its completely flat a prime piece of land and a prime
location.
From the UT, 5/1/14
Fabiani says the Chargers are hoping to complete a proposal by years end
that would use public land at the Sports Arena, Qualcomm Stadium and
downtown to generate revenue for a long-sought after new venue without
additional taxpayer dollars.
Under the plan, the team would spend millions of dollars campaigning for a
November 2016 ballot measure that could pass with a simple majority vote
because its not a tax increase requiring two-thirds voter approval.
Fabiani says ongoing discussions with Mayor Kevin Faulconer and his staff
surround tying the current stadium and sports arena sites in with city and
county owned land in the East Village.
The other properties being discussed are the city-owned Wonder Bread
building property off L Street adjacent to Tailgate Park, an MTS bus yard
owned by the county, and the citys sports arena, known as Valley View
Casino Center.

Fabiani says Qualcomm and the sports arena site would be ceded to a private
owner for redevelopment, with a portion of resulting profits channeled to the
Chargers to pay about 65 percent of an estimated $1-billion downtown
stadium. Qualcomms redevelopment would include a riverfront park and
open space.
Fabiani says the Chargers would put up $400 million including a $200
million loan from the NFL.
Our idea is to knit these pieces of land together and then bring in a private
developer to do the development and generate enough revenue to provide
the 65 percent stadium cost need, Fabiani says. The project is paid for
right at the start. This can work, but its going to take a huge vision.
The Chargers remain open about which site will host the new stadium,
Fabiani says, but prefer downtown because of available parking on Sundays,
existing infrastructure and multiple transportation links.
Mission Valley site
October 16, 2013
Chargers admit the team has never given up redevelopment of
Qualcomm site
Chargers say team and development partner Colony Capital LLC
are discussing redevelopment of Qualcomm site
Chargers believe the site is perfect for building an urban village
No formal proposal by Chargers
No formal financial plan by Chargers
From the UT, 10/16/13:
Fabiani tells UT columnist Nick Canepa that the Chargers are considering
the Qualcomm site.
The Qualcomm drawing board never was taken down. So the Chargers are
going back to it, Canepa writes.
The Qualcomm site drawing board always was there, Fabiani tells Canepa.
Now that the economic and housing issues have improved, redeveloping
the Qualcomm site is something were discussing with our development
partner (Colony Capital) as something of interest. A major international

company, which I cant name now, is interested in partnering with us for

stadium naming rights. The site is perfect for private development, for
building an urban village.
Does this mean the Chargers will no longer pursue a downtown stadium,
Canepa asks?
No, no, Fabiani says. Things still have to happen. Because of taxes, the
courts still have to approve taxes for the new Convention Center property,
which could take two years. Well be watching it, but we just cant sit
around and wait while the next mayor is campaigning. So, with the economy
and housing situations better, were taking another look at the Qualcomm
site.
Mission Valley Site
April 19, 2014
Fabiani says the Chargers are open to ideas and not locked into
any site
From the UT, 4/19/14:
The Chargers game plan for replacing Qualcomm Stadium increasingly
points to a countywide ballot measure a little more than two years from now.
A working scenario would see a roughly $1 billion stadium proposal go
before voters in the November 2016 presidential general election.
Funding would combine money from the Spanos family that owns the team,
development partner Colony Capital LLC, and some form of taxpayer
contribution common in the construction costs of every new NFL stadium in
recent years.
The Spanos family and investment partners would put up roughly $400
million and seek a $200 million loan from the NFL. The rub comes in how
the remaining $400 million would be financed.
The Chargers say they are open to ideas and not locked into any site. That
comes after the city vehemently opposed its idea of a multi-use stadium that
could work in conjunction with the downtown convention center.
Nonetheless, we are continuing to work on this project, and we hope that
our ongoing meetings with the mayors staff will result in another proposal
that can work for the city, the Chargers, and ultimately, the voters, Fabiani

said.
While the team had once abandoned the Mission Valley Qualcomm
property as a redevelopment site, it now says it is willing to consider that
location.
JMI Convention Center Expansion Stadium Proposal August 2014
JMI Reality, former Padres owner John Moores real estate
company that oversaw the ballpark district master plan, unveils
$1.4-billion plan for a downtown stadium as well as expanded
convention space
JMIs consultants say a new Chargers stadium and expanded
convention space will cost less than if built separately
JMI does not ask consultants for a financing plan, but instead
leaves that crucial element up to the city
JMI presents renderings of stadium and expanded convention
space by HOK Populous architectural firm (the longtime
architects of the Chargers)
Complex would be located on the Tailgate Park parking lot and
the MTS bus yard, both located east of Petco Park
JMI also plans to build a hotel at the foot of Park Boulevard
One downside: The JMI plan will not yield the 750,000-squarefeet of contiguous space the very large convention groups want in
San Diego -- and from which convention groups get the most of
their revenues.
At time the JMI plan was unveiled, Fabiani declines comment, but
has repeatedly said the Chargers want to work out a plan for a
new stadium at the Qualcomm site or downtown
Eventually, the Chargers get on board with JMI plan
No formal financing plan by JMI
No formal financing plan by Chargers
From the UT, 8/9/14:
JMI Reality unveils a $1.4-billion plan that could produce more space for
conventions and a new stadium for the Chargers at less cost than if built
separately.

The plan comes just as city officials and the hotel industry are trying to
decide what to do about an August 1, 2014 appellate court decision that
threw the proposed $520-million San Diego Convention Center expansion
into jeopardy. It also offers the chance to solve the Chargers objections to
playing at Qualcomm Stadium. There are at least five other alternatives
available to the city.
JMI Realty has shared its ideas with the city, Chargers and other
stakeholders, and plans to meet with other groups in coming weeks.
The JMI concept, with multiple options, may not please everyone, but it
offers at least one way out of the legal limbo for the convention center,
which tourism industry leaders say needs to be bigger to accommodate
growing convention business.
JMI consultants estimate the convention center expansion would cost $680
million, and the Chargers stadium at $1.15 billion, not counting site
acquisition and environmental cleanup.
JMI did not ask its consultants for a financing plan, leaving that crucial
detail for the city to work out.
JMIs joint use-facility a Chargers stadium with the exhibit hall below the
football field and meeting and ballroom space in an attached building cost:
$1.42 billion, $416 million less than two separate facilities.
One downside, however, is that the JMI plan will not yield the 750,000square feet of contiguous space the very large convention groups want in
San Diego and from which convention groups get the most of their
revenue.
Fabiani declines to comment on the JMI plan, but he has repeatedly said the
team hopes to work out a plan to deliver a new stadium to the team, either at
the Qualcomm site or downtown.
From espn.com, 11/25/14:
An espn.com story by Eric Williams states that the JMI plan has yet to build
consensus with city business and political leaders.

Weve worked very closely with JMI and have a good, cooperative
relationship, Fabiani said.
From espn.com, 1/14/15:
Saying he will fight to keep the Chargers in San Diego, Mayor Kevin
Faulconer in his State of the City address he plans to assemble a group of
civic leaders to study potential location and a financing plan for a new
stadium. He says the task force will focus on two sites: the current site of
Qualcomm or building a stadium along with an expanded convention center
near the Padres Petco Park.
JMI proposed building a $1.4-billion multi-use facility with a retractable
roof that would house a new football stadium for the Chargers, along with
planned expansion of the convention center that would include an exhibition
below the football field, and a meeting room and ballroom space in an
attached building, with views of the field and the bay.
However, the Chargers have not built consensus on the proposal with local
business and community leaders. If consensus on the proposal is met, a
possible vote on the project would appear in front of voters on a countywide
ballot as early as the general election in November 2016. The proposal
would need two-thirds majority vote in order to use hotel tax money as a
funding source for the project. That funding source has been contemplated
for use on the convention center expansion.
From the Times of San Diego.com, 3/4/15:
The company (JMI) proposed a plan that would put the complex at Tailgate
Park and the MTS bus yard, which are located next to Petco Park.
Mission Valley Site
February 26, 2015
Fabiani says Chargers have a renewed focus on Qualcomm site
From an online chat Fabiani has with the San Diego Stadium Coalition
(sdstadium.org), posted 2/26/15:
Sdjase says: Have the Chargers gone back to focusing solely on the
Qualcomm site since the hoteliers appear unwilling to budge downtown with
regard to the convention center?

Andyparkersports says: Could you explain that roadblock a littler further

please.
Mark Fabiani says: Yes, you are right. The downtown hoteliers have not
moved an inch, even after having their own funding plan declared illegal. It
probably does not make sense for us to continue to wait and hope that they
change their minds.
Mark Fabiani says: Hence the renewed focus on Qualcomm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SOURCES: UT San Diego, espn.com, Chargers website specifically set up
by the team for CSAG, KPBS.org, San Diego Free Press.com, the Port of
San Diego website, sdstadium.org, boltsfromtheblue.com, and other media
outlets and websites, and individual reporting