NFL’s Letter to San Diego Mayor Faulconer

The Mighty 1090 received a copy of the letter that the NFL plans to put in front of the Mayor of San Diego during their meeting today regarding the stadium situation. Dan Sileo read it on the air and you can listen to it below. Here’s what the letter said:

July 28, 2015


The City of San Diego’s current plan has the following components:

  1. Completion of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in less than three weeks: To allow the City Council to place a matter on a special election ballot by January 15, 2016, the City must complete its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in less than three weeks. All of these other projects the NFL has worked on in California over the years have taken more than a year, at a minimum, to complete a legally viable EIR (AEG/Farmers Field 17 months; Roski/City of Industry 14 months; 49ers/Santa Clara 13 months; etc.).
  2. Presenting a Financing Plan to Voters: When the City completes its historically rapid EIR process, the City then apparently intends to propose to voters in a special election that they approve taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city’s General Fund to pay for the stadium. Polling data shows that just a small minority of voters in California would support devoting General Fund money to stadium construction.
  3. Relying on the County of San Diego to follow the lead of city voters: In the unlikely event that city voters approve the general fund expenditure, the city would then rely on the County Board of Supervisors to match the city’s contribution. Unfortunately, the board’s own formal written policy says that there must be a county-wide vote before any public money can be spent on a stadium and there appears to be little sentiment on the board to change that policy. In addition, the County’s counsel has said that any County spending on the stadium project must be appropriated over three or four budget cycles, and that future votes cannot be guaranteed because of possible changes in the County’s financial circumstances or the makeup of the Board..
  4. Prevailing in Litigation: Assuming the City approves the ballot measure, and a reversal of the county board’s position, the city planners should defeat various lawsuits in court. These lawsuits could challenge the validity of the quickie EIR, the City’s decision to sell Lease Revenue Bonds backed by the General Fund, the County Board’s decision to violate its own policies, and various other issues. Some of these issues could be litigated all the way to the California Supreme Court, a process that could take two-to-four years.
  5. The City’s End Game: If at any point in this process the City’s plan fails – the voters disapprove the ballot measure, the County refuses to put in its share of the money over the next four appropriations cycles, the courts strike down the EIR or the Lease Revenue Bonds, then everyone would go back to square one on a new proposal. At that point, however, the Chargers will have lost out on their Los Angeles opportunity and will be facing an imminent lease expiration in San Diego in 2020.

NOTE: The City may say that the EIR will take four months, but that is not correct. To hold on election on our around January 15, 2016, the City Council must approve a certified EIR on October 15, 2015. CEQA mandates a 45-day public comment period, and requires that the City accounts for all of the public comments in the final document. Working back from October 15th, according to the City’s own schedule, the written EIR must be submitted to the public by August 3rd, less than three weeks from when the City Council first appropriated money to pay for the EIR.

NOTE: California’s various arena projects have followed similar EIR timelines: Sacramento Kings Arena 13 months; Golden State Warriors arena Project in San Francisco begun in October 2014 and not likely to be finished until the spring of 2016.

NOTE: The City will claim that a California state legislative “exemption” will shorten the litigation time. This is incorrect, for several reasons. Even if such an exemption could be achieved in Sacramento, it would not take effect until January 1, 2016, too late to have an effect on an EIR certified on October 15, 2015. What’s more, even the most far-reaching exemption achieved so far (Roski, City of Industry) only required that the EIR litigation be expedited; under this legislation, the entire process would still take just less than a year. Finally, no legislative exemption would impact lawsuits regarding the City’s Lease Revenue Bonds/general fund or the County’s possible violation of its own procedures; these lawsuits would process at a normal California pace.



34 thoughts on “NFL’s Letter to San Diego Mayor Faulconer

  1. Cecil Treadwell

    Under the ownership of the Spanos family the CHARGERS have lost any semblance of appeal, excitement, and voter support.

  2. Cecil Treadwell

    Build an Aztec stadium that will also serve as a soccer stadium and let San Diego State use the rest of the property to expand their campus. This is Marty Block’s proposal and it is a good proposal.

  3. Cecil Treadwell

    The CHARGERS organization has been in unmistakable free-fall since the Spanos family has owned them. The biggest ongoing curse for the CHARGERS has been their owner.
    San Diego is an undeniable example of one of the markets where NFL football has either peaked out or in steady decline.
    SOCCER is the future of sports in San Diego.

  4. Cecil Treadwell

    Good riddance Spanos family! Too bad the CHARGERS suffered under your ownership. Good luck in a new location. You’re going to need it.

  5. David Nunez

    Very sad. The NFL is a group of gangsters from tax exempt status to it its strong arm tactics to have tax payers pay for all its stadiums. San Diego will survive and the NFL and Spanos family will go on, however, I hope all my fellow San Diegans will join me in never forgetting how this was handled by both of these parties. They can all go fuck themselves.

  6. Inkydan

    Fabiani has worked tirelessly for 15 years to get a stadium deal done here and the city could not have cared less. Now that the City is trying to pull their typical political BS you blame him? Here is a link to Jim Stieg’s review of how many times the city has failed to accomplish anything regarding this topic. Read through it and see who is truly at fault.

  7. Inkydan

    The NFL is selling, they are not buying. If a city wants a growing multi-billion dollar industry to stay in their community they have to work with the NFL to keep them. The City has FAILED time and time again to do that. If San Diego doesn’t want to keep the team, there are obviously many other cities that do. Check this out and see how badly the city has failed for so long.

  8. Inkydan

    Short sighted and tone deaf. You really think the city is better without the NFL? An investment in a new stadium creates a partnership with a growing multi-billions dollar industry. Investing in winners is a good thing but San Diego knows nothing about that. Just look at their horrific history of public policy.

  9. decal626

    Could you fail at your job for 15 years and still have a job? Don’t cry for Fabiani or the Chargers. Ha.

  10. Inkydan

    I am bitter and I am sad, not at the Chargers but at the City of San Diego and it’s uninformed citizens. I see why San Diego has such a horrific history of political incompetence. This issue has been going on for 14 years and the city has done nothing but disregard it and now that it is too late, people want to blame the Spanos family and Mark Fabiani? Check out the history of the stadium search and see who the real culprit is, or you can just look in a mirror.

  11. thomas coldiron

    looks to me like someone pranked the mighty 1090 coz the nfl would not send out a letter like that and why only to the 1090, i smell a rat.

  12. Adam

    reading that document is maybe one of the most depressing things i’ve done in a long time

  13. MySDLoans

    As a native San Diegan, I’ve watched the Spanos family screw up my team year in and year out siding with dip$hits over football minds time and time again leading to ruinous results from Bobby Ross to Ryan Leaf to Drew Brees to Marty Schottenheimer and that’s just for starters. I don’t want my bolts to go, but I’m over this ownership.
    If the NFL wants to start ripping teams from their hometowns, who cares about loyalties, the Shield, and community fabric. Take your fickle attitude NFL and leave us in America’s Finest City where we will replace you and move on until you beg to come back… and you will! Mark my words!

  14. Frank McKenna

    come on now. San Diego has given many a sweet deal to the Chargers over the years. In fact the Chargers don’t even pay rent and they had ticket guarantees for many years. They performed poorly on the field for many years but still were given guaranteed money by the city. This city and our fans have bent over backwards for this team. They need to show us some loyalty back.

  15. Pingback: NFL pushes Chargers and San Diego further apart | Mighty1090AM

  16. eugene coldiron

    I don’t think you will find a lot of people who would agree with you on Fabiani

  17. David Nunez

    I’m familiar with the cities failures and complete lack of honest, creative, political leadership. They failed us, however, it does not change the fact that the NFL and Spanos are strong arming cities for corporate welfare while smiling and saying how much they love their fans. Its a joke. I’ve had season tickets for longer than I want to admit to and it pains me as a feverish fan that I will never give the NFL or Spanos another dime of my money. I’m
    from fuk’n San Diego PARADISE and we should be selling and NEVER buying!!!

  18. Doug Lister

    I understand that the long held belief is that Major sports teams are good for the economy. However most studies recently done have shown the opposite. Could you prove that it’s good for the city’s economy? And I made a ton of money during the infancy of the gaslamp tending bar during events such as Street Scene and the ’96 Republican National Convention. But please show me that the NFL is good for San Diego. Is it possible to make a deal with the Chargers and the NFL that’s good for the city? Who’s paying for the stadium and what revenue ends up going to the city? Would you buy an investment property that produces no direct revenue? The pendulum has swung so far in favor of the NFL and teams that I’m not sure it’s good for the city

  19. Cecil Treadwell

    Only a synergistic collaboration between the sport of soccer and the sport of NFL football by means of a versatile multi-use stadium with a portable natural Bermuda grass field like the one at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, would there be a viable inclusive solution for the TOTAL SPORTS NEEDS of San Diego. The 166-acre Qualcomm site has more than enough room to build a stadium of this ingenious design, but with at least TWO portable natural grass fields. One gridded out for football and one or more lined out for soccer. The majority of people in San Diego like soccer and that is the majority market that has been completely overlooked when planning a new stadium.

  20. Cecil Treadwell

    Not while they are owned by the Spanos family. Too bad they are TIGHTWADS with ZERO VISION. Being owned by the Spanos family has been the biggest ongoing curse for the Chargers.

  21. Cecil Treadwell

    Being owned by the Spanos family has been the biggest ongoing curse for the Chargers and the City of San Diego. The Spanos family are TIGHTWADS with ZERO VISION. Although the city of Glendale, Arizona is struggling with the total economic responsibility of the University of Phoenix Stadium, I think it represents the kind of next generation multi-use stadium San Diego needs to build, but with TWO portable Bermuda grass playing fields. One for soccer and one for football.
    Check out Century Link Field in Seattle. The NFL Seahawks and the MLS Sounders share that stadium. Century Link Stadium would never have been approved by the voters of Seattle without the votes of the soccer-only fans who voted for the project because they knew it would be home for a professional soccer team. The versatile and adaptive University of Phoenix Stadium design represents the wave of the future for multi-use stadiums especially if they are located in an ideal climate zone like San Diego does. Adding at least a second portable natural grass field gives quantum flexibility to a city. It makes it possible for a NFL team and a MLS team to coexist amicably and lucratively in the same stadium. This stadium design also maximizes revenue for the city.

  22. Cecil Treadwell

    I’ve been watching the Chargers since 1967 when the stadium was brand new. The demographics have changed and soccer is coming on strong. It already surpasses NFL football in popularity in the San Diego market and yet the sport has not been factored in as an equal player when deciding on what kind of stadium complex to build in San Diego. The sport of soccer can act as a ‘life preserver’ for the Chargers if they can swallow their pride and share a stadium with this other major sport.

  23. Eliel Lopez

    Interesting idea, but knowing that the Chargers would want it all, they probably wouldn’t give up the revenue from concessions. The deal would have to include that the MLS Team would be able to keep those revenues from concessions from their games.

  24. Eliel Lopez

    From what I’ve read here, this doesn’t sound promising for keeping the team here. In fact, it just reiterates what Fabiani has been saying all along.

  25. Cecil Treadwell

    As a rule, MLS teams don’t want to be sub-tenants in the same stadium as a NFL team. Construction of Seattle’s Century Link Field however, would not have been approved without the vote of soccer-only fans who knew, ahead of time, the stadium would be shared equally by a professional soccer team. The Seattle Sounders consistently draw 40,000 fans. Their record crowd exceeded 67,000.
    The new stadium being built for the NFL Atlanta Falcons will also be home for a new MLS team that begins playing in 2017.
    St. Louis wants a new stadium approved by the voters and, like Century Link Field, might need a MLS team to share the new stadium as a way of getting enough voters to approve its construction.
    A MLS team in San Jose will not be sharing the new Levi’s Stadium the 49ers now call home. They have their own venue about 4 miles away.
    A stadium designed like the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona would be perfect for San Diego, but with at least TWO portable natural Bermuda grass fields. One for the Chargers and one for MLS soccer. No need to keep changing boundary lines etc.
    The portable grass field in Glendale, Arizona is 2.1 acres and takes an hour to roll inside the stadium. That’s 2 1/10 acres.
    The parking lot at Qualcomm Stadium is 122 acres. More than enough room for at least two of these portable natural grass fields.
    San Diego was the third largest television audience watching the recent World Cup final. Only Kansas City and St. Louis were larger.
    The Chargers need use of a stadium only 10 days each year.
    Soccer events would nearly fill a modern stadium all year round in San Diego.

  26. Cecil Treadwell

    A serious plan for these 166 acres is proposed by Senator Marty Block. His plan is to annex the property to San Diego State so they can make a high tech expansion of their campus, but with a new stadium for the San Diego State Aztecs and professional soccer.

  27. Pingback: UPDATE: The #LetterGate Documents | Mighty1090AM

  28. Truthspitter

    What a disgrace the way the Spanos family has handled this. Talk about treating your longtime fans with no respect.