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 65,600 capacity, 73,000+ Super Bowl capacityResidential 1,000 units to 3,200 unitsOffice Space 500,000-square-feet to 1,150,000-square-feetRetail Space 100,000-square-feet to 350,000-square-feetHotel 300 rooms to 450 roomsRiver Park 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 ContributionFunds from Chargers Debt and/or Equity $132 millionFunds from NFL G-3 Loan $68 millionTotal Team Contribution: $200 million

Public FundsCity of San Diego $200 millionTotal 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 revenue-generating 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, 1/8/06Fabiani 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, one-sided 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-arena-sports entertainment complex-expanded convention center on the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal site. In their editorials, Manchester and his right-hand 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 long-standing 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, 1/11/14Two 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 city-owned 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, 5/1/14Fabiani 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-square-feet 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 750,000-square 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