San Diego officials advanced their pursuit of a new Chargers stadium on Monday by unveiling a financing plan, releasing a 6,000-page environmental analysis of the project and presenting both to a group of NFL owners in Chicago.

The public officials leading San Diego’s stadium effort said, however, that their progress won’t mean much in the short term unless the Chargers return to the negotiating table in the next two weeks so that a deal can be reached in time for a January special election.

An election has been tentatively scheduled for January because that’s when the NFL is expected to decide whether the Chargers, St. Louis Rams or Oakland Raiders will be allowed to move to Los Angeles.

1 / 12 Aerial view with Interstate 15 to the right and Friars Road at the top of the image ( / Populous) 2 / 12 New landscaped connection to the existing trolley station ( / Populous) 3 / 12 Main entry to the stadium. Note the slit between sections -- an effort to give fans a view beyond the stadium from their seats. The open area is a pedestrian plaza. ( / Populous) 4 / 12 A corporate hospitality and civic event zone adjacent to the stadium. ( / Populous) 5 / 12 A “fan park” would be part of the stadium complex -- ideas might include a fountain, skateboard park and beer garden. ( / Populous) 6 / 12 The main entry passes by a possible “Hall of Fame.” Upside-down trees seem to hang from the upper level. ( / Populous) 7 / 12 One of the entrances, this one for VIPs, is located underneath a giant video screen that extends beyond the stadium walls. Bridges connect the various levels of the seating bowl in an arrangement reminiscent of mid-century modern architectural ideas for future design. The landscaping suggests a xeriscape approach of water-saving plants. ( / Populous) 8 / 12 The VIP Atrium illustrates the outdoor spaces fitted into the stadium, including a rooftop patio lounge. ( / Populous) 9 / 12 A north-facing perspective illustrates the seating bowl, the slits opening up to vistas beyond and the steep upper levels meant to bring fans closer to the playing field that currently at Qualcomm Stadium. ( / Populous) 10 / 12 A new wrinkle in fan experience might be “sideline clubs” where attendees could get closer than usual to the action on the field. ( / Populous) 11 / 12 End zone suites would offer another place where fans could watch the action at playing field level. ( / Populous) 12 / 12 The endzone terrace shows an area where fans could walk past the playing field. To the right is a garden and a secondary video screen. ( / Populous)


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.

The proposed financing plan, which San Diego officials unveiled at a press conference overlooking Qualcomm Stadium, requires city and county taxpayers to pay $350 million of an estimated $1.1 billion in stadium construction costs — or 32 percent.

The Chargers, the NFL and revenue from personal seat licenses would cover the remaining $750 million — or 68 percent.

The Chargers would also 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.

The same plan was presented by members of San Diego’s negotiating team on Monday in Chicago to the NFL’s Los Angeles relocation committee — a group of six owners overseeing the process.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer said he was optimistic voters would approve such a proposal, hailing it as a good deal for taxpayers. He stressed that a 32 percent public contribution is far less than the average 48 percent public contribution for the last five NFL stadiums built.

Faulconer also said requiring the Chargers to cover maintenance and operating expenses of the stadium would protect taxpayers, noting that maintenance of Qualcomm Stadium costs the city nearly $13 million per year.


“The fair financing concept created with the input of our negotiating experts includes safeguards to protect taxpayers and is a vast improvement over what we have,” Faulconer said. “A stadium plan must be good for taxpayers and our community, and I won’t accept anything less.”

The city’s financial contribution of $200 million would come from lease revenue bonds, where the city uses municipal buildings as collateral to borrow money for infrastructure projects. That funding mechanism wouldn’t be dependent on any possible stadium rent payments from the Chargers.

The county’s $150 million contribution would come from capital investment bond revenue.

A poll conducted for the city in June showed voters in a special election would support a deal by a margin of 51 percent to 41 percent if taxpayers cover one-third of the stadium’s costs, while the NFL, the Chargers and corporate sponsorships cover the other two-thirds.


Recent San Diego Union-Tribune/10News polls by SurveyUSA, however, have consistently shown a majority of people oppose public money being spent on a new Chargers stadium.

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said Monday that he doubted such a plan would get voter approval.

“Both history and current polling show it will be extraordinarily difficult to persuade voters to devote hundreds of millions of general fund tax dollars to a stadium,” he said.

When the same plan was presented privately last month to top NFL officials, executive vice president Eric Grubman said a concern was that the plan includes “very significant funding from NFL and Chargers sources.”


Grubman declined to comment Monday on how the meeting went in Chicago.

Faulconer’s chief of staff, Stephen Puetz, attended the meeting and said he was encouraged.

“They were very interested in our timeline,” he said. “They didn’t promise that they would wait for us to have a vote in January, but they didn’t say they won’t wait.”

Puetz said the session lasted one hour and 15 minutes, about half an hour longer than expected.


“I viewed the length as a positive because it shows they were engaged,” said Puetz, adding that it was difficult to gauge how the owners in the room see the Los Angeles process. “It was pretty clear these owners are trying not to show their cards.”

The relatively low amount of public money in the framework proposed on Monday could make the deal unappealing to the Chargers and discourage them from reviving negotiations.

Supervisor Roberts said Monday that he doesn’t expect the Chargers to resume negotiations in time to meet a Sept. 11 deadline for a deal.

Negotiations can’t continue into the fall because of several City Council approvals needed for a January ballot measure, and a requirement under state election law that measures be ready for the ballot at least 88 days before election day.


Roberts said he would love to start talks with the Chargers tomorrow, but that he doesn’t expect the team to enter serious negotiations until the NFL makes a decision on which franchise or franchises can move to Los Angeles.

“We know we are not their first choice,” he said. “We are not naive enough to think we can compete with that market.”

But Roberts said the financing framework and draft environmental impact report released Monday could become key factors if the NFL allows St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move to Los Angeles ahead of the Chargers.

The league would likely force Kroenke to pay a relocation fee of $200 million or more, helping the Chargers cover the $362.5 million contribution San Diego’s financing framework envisions. The framework also includes a $200 million loan from the NFL, which would not be recouped from public treasuries.


“If Kroenke goes to L.A., I think that’s a strong opportunity for the Chargers to end up here and for us to be one, big happy family,” Roberts said.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith stressed that San Diego has done everything necessary to have a complete proposal for a 68,000-seat stadium approved by voters in January.

“If the NFL wants a franchise in the nation’s eighth largest city, we have demonstrated we can move quickly toward a public vote meeting the NFL’s timetable,” he said.

The 6,000-page EIR, a draft the city expects to finalize in October, was created in much less time than such documents typically take because roughly 100 scientists and consultants worked long hours this summer to help create it.


The process was also simpler because the new stadium would be constructed on the site of Qualcomm stadium, where the city is already familiar with traffic, noise and other challenges, Goldsmith said.

Roberts said it is “as solid as any EIR I’ve seen.”

Fabiani, the Chargers official, reiterated on Monday his criticisms of the city’s accelerated approach.

“Never before in California history has a controversial, billion dollar project relied on environmental review documents hastily prepared in three weeks,” he said. “The Chargers have been clear from the start that the franchise will not be the city’s guinea pig for this inevitably ill-fated legal experiment.”


Conceptual renderings for the proposed stadium, which could expand to 72,000 seats for a Super Bowl, were released Monday.