The City and County of San Diego yesterday unveiled updated plans for a new Chargers Stadium, which were "immediately trashed" by the club, "making it look increasingly doubtful the long-running, contentious issue can be solved by City Hall's Sept. 11 deadline to have a deal in place to qualify for a January vote," according to Bernie Wilson of the AP. The proposal came a "few hours after a local contingent made a presentation to the NFL's Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities in Chicago." It "includes contributions" of $362.5M from the Chargers, a $200M loan from the NFL, $187.5M in PSLs, $200M from the city and $150M from the county. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer said that the public contribution "will be capped" at 32% of the total project, and the team "would be responsible for overruns." Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani said, "Never before in California history has a controversial, billion dollar project relied on environmental review documents hastily prepared in three weeks." Wilson noted the Chargers "walked away from negotiations in June, saying they doubted the city could produce an EIR that will hold up in court." The two sides "have one month to agree to a deal so a special election can be planned." Faulconer: "It will be up to the NFL and working with the Chargers here in the coming days to determine a path forward. We are ready, the negotiating table is open, and we'll see in the next couple of days." He added, "We will not have an election in January unless we have a final deal that has been agreed to" (AP, 8/10). In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore notes the Chargers indicated through Fabiani's statement that they "want nothing to do with the city's current plan." Bonsignore: "The question now is, will the NFL hold up a decision on L.A. to enable San Diego to at least get it to a vote?" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 8/11). San Diego attorney Jan Goldsmith said, "If the NFL wants a franchise in the nation’s eighth-largest city, we have demonstrated we can move quickly toward a public vote" (L.A. TIMES, 8/11).
LEGION OF DOOM? The Chargers' top outside environmental counsel, George Mihlsten, yesterday told key NFL owners that the city of San Diego’s stadium plan is “doomed to face years of litigation,” according to Fabiani. Mihlsten, an attorney with Latham Watkins, re-emphasized the team contention that the city’s stadium plan relies on too short a period for environmental review that will surely get thrown out in court (Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer). Mihlsten added that he has advised Chargers Chair Dean Spanos "not to participate in any part of the San Diego process." In L.A., Sam Farmer writes, "From the perspective of Spanos, even if a stadium were to be approved, it could take years for it to become a reality -- if it weren't undone by legal challenges." In the meantime, the Rams "could be playing in a new stadium in L.A." (L.A. TIMES, 8/11). But San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts said that even if the Chargers "refuse to negotiate this summer, San Diego could still be in position to make a deal with the team next year if NFL owners decide in January to let the Rams be the first team to move to Los Angeles -- instead of the Chargers or Raiders." In San Diego, David Garrick in a front-page piece notes the Chargers would "be responsible for all construction cost overruns, annual operating expenses of the stadium and future capital improvements." The plan, which city and county officials "characterized as a conceptual financing framework, would give the Chargers all revenue from naming rights, luxury suites and concessions." Faulconer said that requiring the Chargers to cover maintenance and operating expenses "would protect taxpayers." The city’s financial contribution of $200M would "come from lease revenue bonds." The county’s $150M contribution would "come from capital investment bond revenue" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/11). Spanos yesterday said that he "has had no contact with San Diego officials in seven weeks." Christopher Melvin, San Diego’s point man on the Mission Valley project, said, "We've had very little contact with the franchise. The franchise seems very focused on the Carson opportunity" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 8/11).
CALLING A CHARGE: In San Diego, Kevin Acee writes there is "no way the Chargers accept the terms of a plan laid out by city and county leaders that calls for a mere" 32% to be publicly financed. The "average public contribution toward construction" of the five newest NFL stadiums is 48%. But what San Diego officials did is show "they are ready to play." Their latest volley is "at least three first downs short of realistic, but it tangibly demonstrates a readiness and a feasible path." What the city and county are "basically doing is pointing their efforts around the Chargers and directly at the NFL, hoping to demonstrate that the region is serious about working out a viable plan" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/11). A UNION-TRIBUNE editorial states, "It seems all but certain that the city will miss the NFL’s deadline, as Fabiani plainly wants. But does this mean the Chargers are gone?" That is "far from certain." The editorial: "We know details don’t matter to the many local residents who oppose any stadium deal if it has a dime in public subsidies. We certainly care about such details. But we also consider the Chargers an important civic asset. We understand this proposal is in many ways only preliminary." Nevertheless, it "seems a crucial, sound and thoughtful step toward keeping the team in San Diego -- without going overboard on taxpayer subsidies" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/11).
THE BLUEPRINT: In San Diego, Roger Showley notes the proposed stadium's design "represents the 'essence of San Diego,' with varied landscapes, vistas to the surroundings, new fan features that promote outdoor living and a 'kinetic skin' that mimics the sound of the ocean." Populous Senior Principal Scott Radecic said that designers "sought to capture many elements of San Diego's natural landscape and climate." He said, "We wanted to make sure as a team that we were making this a really authentic place and people who see it will say, 'That represents our city -- that represents where the Chargers should be." At the same time, Radecic said that his architects "strove to make the stadium Super Bowl ready" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 8/11).
